This is very important. Using apocalyptic thinking - doomism - to either justify any means necessary to try to avert it or to bury your head in the sand and give up is, in the end, self fulfilling. Because what actually comes to an end with either choice is one's own adaptability and faith in the ability of life to prevail. At no point in life do we have certainty or all the information, but we must act and move forward. And as we do, we constantly receive new information and course correct. To stubbornly reject either to act or to course correct is to give up on the belief that we can overcome. It is a lack of hope that there could be a better way.
The religious connotations that you've applied to the term apocalypse are not based in the actual text of the Book of Revelation in my opinion, so I will have to respectfully disagree with your position there. You are correct in the etymology of the word, and the Biblical context is that the coming of God's Kingdom on Earth was 'uncovered' to John in a dream, which is why it is apocalyptic literature.
But this thought regarding the apocalypse as the end is just simply wrong. An apocalypse is not an end, but rather a NEW BEGINNING.
Life and existence bends only at the will of change, and new beginnings are necessary in order to grow and flourish and become a greater version of our previous selves.
Indeed, apocalyptic literature has a long heritage besides St John’s.
One might think of it as the revelation of a new beginning, but the end comes first. This is eschatology, a theology (also politics) of the last things.
In this case though the eschatological message isn't one of darkness, but one of hope. The idea of being able to overcome our iniquities through coming to a conclusion bringing about a new beginning is something that is quite beautiful to me. As such, I will always be an 'apocalyptist', as it were.
But I really did enjoy reading your article because I've thought on this subject matter before as well, just on the opposite end of the perspective, so thanks for giving me a different POV!
The coming of the Day of the Lord, starting in OT prophecy, was definitely understood to be vindication for the poor and downtrodden (the "widows and orphans"). It's the long-awaited day of justice. It's the same for the Christian martyrs in John's Apocalypse.
My starting point for this post was not religion. It's present-day apocalyptic politics across the spectrum. The goal of present day apocalyptic movements, right, left, ecological, economical, is not welcoming justice and moving into another better world. It's defeating the Enemy, the Threat in *this* world. It's not even about transformation to something new. It's about taking power from the dangerous Other, and the emotional driver is fear. Apocalypse is bad (what the Enemy will accomplish -- not God!). My argument is that by extreme reaction, this wave of thought-politics ensures the coming of what is feared. I'm making a plea for moderation.
(On a pragmatic level, there's also the phenomenon of crying wolf. Every time some apocalyptist claims "the end is nigh!" and the threat doesn't materialize, the credibility of *legitimate* claims goes out the window. Trust erodes, and even reasonable people can't be heard, even when they have something valid to say. Again, a plea for moderation.)
This is very important. Using apocalyptic thinking - doomism - to either justify any means necessary to try to avert it or to bury your head in the sand and give up is, in the end, self fulfilling. Because what actually comes to an end with either choice is one's own adaptability and faith in the ability of life to prevail. At no point in life do we have certainty or all the information, but we must act and move forward. And as we do, we constantly receive new information and course correct. To stubbornly reject either to act or to course correct is to give up on the belief that we can overcome. It is a lack of hope that there could be a better way.
The religious connotations that you've applied to the term apocalypse are not based in the actual text of the Book of Revelation in my opinion, so I will have to respectfully disagree with your position there. You are correct in the etymology of the word, and the Biblical context is that the coming of God's Kingdom on Earth was 'uncovered' to John in a dream, which is why it is apocalyptic literature.
But this thought regarding the apocalypse as the end is just simply wrong. An apocalypse is not an end, but rather a NEW BEGINNING.
Life and existence bends only at the will of change, and new beginnings are necessary in order to grow and flourish and become a greater version of our previous selves.
Indeed, apocalyptic literature has a long heritage besides St John’s.
One might think of it as the revelation of a new beginning, but the end comes first. This is eschatology, a theology (also politics) of the last things.
In this case though the eschatological message isn't one of darkness, but one of hope. The idea of being able to overcome our iniquities through coming to a conclusion bringing about a new beginning is something that is quite beautiful to me. As such, I will always be an 'apocalyptist', as it were.
But I really did enjoy reading your article because I've thought on this subject matter before as well, just on the opposite end of the perspective, so thanks for giving me a different POV!
The coming of the Day of the Lord, starting in OT prophecy, was definitely understood to be vindication for the poor and downtrodden (the "widows and orphans"). It's the long-awaited day of justice. It's the same for the Christian martyrs in John's Apocalypse.
My starting point for this post was not religion. It's present-day apocalyptic politics across the spectrum. The goal of present day apocalyptic movements, right, left, ecological, economical, is not welcoming justice and moving into another better world. It's defeating the Enemy, the Threat in *this* world. It's not even about transformation to something new. It's about taking power from the dangerous Other, and the emotional driver is fear. Apocalypse is bad (what the Enemy will accomplish -- not God!). My argument is that by extreme reaction, this wave of thought-politics ensures the coming of what is feared. I'm making a plea for moderation.
(On a pragmatic level, there's also the phenomenon of crying wolf. Every time some apocalyptist claims "the end is nigh!" and the threat doesn't materialize, the credibility of *legitimate* claims goes out the window. Trust erodes, and even reasonable people can't be heard, even when they have something valid to say. Again, a plea for moderation.)